How Much Is Fielding Weighted in WAR?

Occasionally (okay, rather frequently), I’ll see people debate the accuracies between the WAR displayed on FanGraphs and Rally’s WAR on Baseball-Reference.

Joe Posnanski speculated on the differences in a recent article about Josh Hamilton’s MVP chances:

*I could be reading this wrong, but Fangraphs seems to put more emphasis on defense. For instance, Carl Crawford’s WAR at Baseball Reference is 3.7 — his defense is worth eight runs above average. But Fangraphs credits him for 22 runs above average, which thrusts his WAR up to 5.6 and into the No. 4 spot in baseball.

I’ve seen similar sentiments echoed throughout the blogosphere and on Twitter.

In reality, on a per-player basis in 2009, UZR distributed 441 fewer runs than TZ did, excluding pitchers and catchers. And there is not a year that UZR is available where its absolute value has been higher than TZ.

In 2009, the maximum spread of UZR was +31 to -37 and TZ showed a similar spread of +31 to -34. Here’s a graph of the full spread. The blue overlap shows the points at which TZ starts showing a greater spread.

This might not be a perfect comparison in how much defense actually contributes to WAR and a better one might be how much as a whole does fielding contribute to total runs. In 2009, fielding made up about 14.2% of all positive and negative runs according to FanGraphs WAR, while Rally’s WAR made up about 15.5% of all positive and negative runs.

All in all, they are similar in how fielding is weighted as a whole. The biggest difference between the two is how each individual player’s fielding is evaluated.

We hoped you liked reading How Much Is Fielding Weighted in WAR? by David Appelman!

Please support FanGraphs by becoming a member. We publish thousands of articles a year, host multiple podcasts, and have an ever growing database of baseball stats.

FanGraphs does not have a paywall. With your membership, we can continue to offer the content you've come to rely on and add to our unique baseball coverage.

Support FanGraphs




David Appelman is the creator of FanGraphs.

newest oldest most voted
Andy S
Guest
Andy S

Just a thought, have you guys ever thought of regressing the fielding numbers, based on their inherent volatility?

mb21
Guest

I like that idea. I also like the idea of expressing defense in a range (something like -7 to +7). I just think as popular as this site is, there needs to be something that shows that the UZR or TZ is not as reliable in a small sample as offense is. I think much of the disagreements start over people saying so and so was worth 9 runs using UZR and -6 runs using TZ. People look at that and say they can’t be right so all defensive metrics should be ignored. They shouldn’t ignored, but I think the unreliability of the metrics should be acknowledged in their measurements. I also think they have to be regressed. UZR/150 is the same as looking at a guy who had 2 home runs after the first game and saying he’s on pace to hit over 300 home runs. Get rid of UZR/150 and add an metric error column.